LEADER 03965nam 2200589 a 450 001 9910461436703321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a0-674-06282-5 024 7 $a10.4159/harvard.9780674062825 035 $a(CKB)2670000000151243 035 $a(OCoLC)778459400 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebrary10535733 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000612511 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11358698 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000612511 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10570223 035 $a(PQKB)11306011 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3301049 035 $a(DE-B1597)178282 035 $a(OCoLC)840446347 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780674062825 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3301049 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10535733 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000151243 100 $a20110504d2012 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 14$aThe people's courts$b[electronic resource] $epursuing judicial independence in America /$fJed Handelsman Shugerman 210 $aCambridge, Mass. $cHarvard University Press$d2012 215 $a1 online resource (392 p.) 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 $a0-674-05548-9 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aDeclaring judicial independence -- Judicial elections as separation of powers -- The calm before the storm -- Panic and trigger -- The American revolutions of 1848 -- The boom of judicial review -- Reconstructing independence -- The progressives' failed solutions -- Earl Warren, crime, and the revival of appointment -- The Missouri plan -- Exporting judicial elections -- The puzzling rise of merit -- Merit's stumble and surge, 1960s-70s -- Judicial plutocracy from 1980 to the present. 330 $aIn the United States, almost 90 percent of state judges have to run in popular elections to remain on the bench. In the past decade, this peculiarly American institution has produced vicious multi-million-dollar political election campaigns and high-profile allegations of judicial bias and misconduct. The People's Courts traces the history of judicial elections and Americans' quest for an independent judiciary-one that would ensure fairness for all before the law-from the colonial era to the present.In the aftermath of economic disaster, nineteenth-century reformers embraced popular elections as a way to make politically appointed judges less susceptible to partisan patronage and more independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. This effort to reinforce the separation of powers and limit government succeeded in many ways, but it created new threats to judicial independence and provoked further calls for reform. Merit selection emerged as the most promising means of reducing partisan and financial influence from judicial selection. It too, however, proved vulnerable to pressure from party politics and special interest groups. Yet, as Shugerman concludes, it still has more potential for protecting judicial independence than either political appointment or popular election.The People's Courts shows how Americans have been deeply committed to judicial independence, but that commitment has also been manipulated by special interests. By understanding our history of judicial selection, we can better protect and preserve the independence of judges from political and partisan influence. 606 $aJudges$zUnited States$xStates$xElection$xHistory 606 $aJudicial independence$zUnited States$xHistory 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aJudges$xStates$xElection$xHistory. 615 0$aJudicial independence$xHistory. 676 $a347.73/14 700 $aShugerman$b Jed Handelsman$f1974-$01053721 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910461436703321 996 $aThe people's courts$92485780 997 $aUNINA